Clock still ticking on city's budget

Hazleton City could be back at square one in its ongoing budget talks.

With no time left to amend the budget before a Feb. 15 adoption deadline, city council members have more questions than answers in terms of determining which of several draft spending plans will become Hazleton's official 2014 budget.

Council typically has a budget in place by Dec. 31, but a new council majority that took office in January opted to extend budget talks through Feb. 15. The extension is afforded to council in the year following a municipal election.

This year's discussions have taken a unique turn.

On Dec. 19, a former council majority approved a $8,921,538 budget that keeps 2014 property tax rates for the general and recreation funds at last year's rate of 3.12 mills for the general fund and at another 0.09 mills for the recreation fund.

The budget, however, uses $450,000 from a dormant sewer transmission fund to pay debt in 2014 - and lower the tax rate levied for debt service from 1.3 mills in 2013 to 0.85 mills in 2014.

Although the budget would cut taxes by $45 for a home worth $100,000, it also contains $500,000 worth of fees for maintaining the storm water system.

Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi, however, vetoed a tax rate ordinance that would have funded that budget and publicly questioned the legality of that spending plan at a recent work session meeting.

Yannuzzi responded in January with amendments that would have increased the overall tax rate from 4.06 total mills from the former majority's budget to 5.06 mills.

When a new majority led by President Jack Mundie took office, council developed a long list of amendments that included a reshuffling of several funds and allocating money for controversial controller and council legal advisor position.

Council approved those amendments on first reading on Jan. 28, but Councilman Jeff Cusat and city solicitor Chris Slusser said the budget has not been balanced - and leaves council no time to further amend the spending plan and meet a 10-day requirement for putting those changes on public display before hitting the Feb. 15 adoption deadline.

The version approved on first reading on Jan. 28 contains a $12,189 surplus. Formal approval requires a vote from council on three readings.

Mundie, however, believes the budget that was approved by the former majority in December wasn't voted on or advertised properly.

Council approved that spending plan on first reading on Dec. 5, but did not wait the required 20 days to vote on second and third readings, he said.

He also questioned whether the city advertised the Dec. 5 budget.

"The mayor's first budget (was voted on by council) Dec. 5 and the second and third (readings were) Dec. 19," Mundie said. "You have to wait 20 days. I don't even know if it was advertised."

Cusat also raised concerns for whether the city properly advertised the 4.06-mill budget that was approved in December.

The councilman believes it doesn't fully account for expenditures and revenue - which he attempted to address in amendments that were introduced on Jan. 28.

He also asked how the city will fund that budget since the mayor vetoed a taxing ordinance.

"We'll have to vote on new tax rates," he said. "Now, there's no way to fund the budget."

Slusser is of the same opinion.

"As it stands, they're not going to have the ability to fix the unbalanced budget they approved on first reading and still have 10 days (to display a budget) before final passage," Slusser said.

When asked about Cusat's concerns for funding the budget, Slusser said that council would have to simply fund it with a new taxing ordinance. City code makes no reference to council approving a taxing ordinance by Feb. 15, Slusser noted.

Other views

Councilman Dave Sosar, meanwhile, said he personally favors the amended budget that was approved on first reading on Jan. 28.

That version has a $12,189 surplus that should be earmarked as unencumbered funds, Sosar said.

Some of the proposed big-ticket changes include cutting pay for several nonunion positions, using money from a dormant sewer transmission account and "unencumbered" funds to scale back on tax rates, removing all expense and revenue line items related to the city's pending takeover of Hazleton Parking Authority and shifting $100,000 from the sewer transmission fund account into the general fund for street paving and repairs. That proposal would also eliminate the storm water maintenance fee.

That budget also contains a city controller and legal advisor positions, which Sosar say are permitted under the city administrative code.

Mundie said that by Slusser's own opinion, council must balance its latest amended budget on second and third readings.

After hearing the mayor raise legal questions about the budget that was released in December, Mundie believes the council should move forward with the budget it approved on first reading on Jan. 28.

"This is the more correct budget," Mundie said. "This is the one we should pass and that should be our budget."

sgalski@standardspeaker.com

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.

Not long ago, homelessness was unheard of in the Hazleton area. Rents and the cost of homes were low and almost universally affordable; families routinely found rooms for poor relatives in basements, attics or other small household areas. However, today’s
(read more)